IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v145y2019icp62-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The private returns to knowledge: A comparison of ICT, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, and green technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Stucki, Tobias
  • Woerter, Martin

Abstract

ICT, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, and green technologies are among the most important emerging technological activities and may substantially increase economic returns. However, empirical evidence is rather scarce, as most existing literature focuses on the economic returns to knowledge in general and does not compare the effects of knowledge in different types of technologies. Based on a well-founded productivity model, we find (a) that knowledge in these “new growth” technologies shows larger economic returns than knowledge in traditional technologies; (b) a solid knowledge stock in traditional technologies is required to achieve positive economic returns from “new growth” technologies; (c) there are significant differences in the economic returns; the largest effects are achieved through knowledge in ICT, followed by biotechnology. Only moderate economic returns are detected for knowledge in nanotechnologies, and green technologies; (d) we also identify some evidence that technology convergence, i.e. technologies that are based on inter-disciplinary research activities, show larger economic returns than technologies generated based on a single discipline.

Suggested Citation

  • Stucki, Tobias & Woerter, Martin, 2019. "The private returns to knowledge: A comparison of ICT, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, and green technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 62-81.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:145:y:2019:i:c:p:62-81
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518313544
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    2. Markus Eberhardt & Christian Helmers & Hubert Strauss, 2013. "Do Spillovers Matter When Estimating Private Returns to R&D?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(2), pages 436-448, May.
    3. Cockburn, Iain & Griliches, Zvi, 1988. "Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market's Valuation of R&D and Patents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 419-423, May.
    4. Rachel Griffith & Stephen Redding & John Van Reenen, 2004. "Mapping the Two Faces of R&D: Productivity Growth in a Panel of OECD Industries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(4), pages 883-895, November.
    5. Christian Soltmann & Tobias Stucki & Martin Woerter, 2015. "The Impact of Environmentally Friendly Innovations on Value Added," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 457-479, November.
    6. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    7. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    8. Philippe Aghion & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & David Hémous & Ralf Martin & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-51.
    9. Arora, Ashish & Ceccagnoli, Marco & Cohen, Wesley M., 2008. "R&D and the patent premium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1153-1179, September.
    10. Beise, Marian & Rennings, Klaus, 2005. "Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 5-17, January.
    11. Chad Syverson, 2011. "What Determines Productivity?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 326-365, June.
    12. Danzon, Patricia M. & Nicholson, Sean & Pereira, Nuno Sousa, 2005. "Productivity in pharmaceutical-biotechnology R&D: the role of experience and alliances," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 317-339, March.
    13. M. Hashem Pesaran, 2007. "A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2), pages 265-312.
    14. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    15. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1033-1082, Elsevier.
    16. Wolfgang Keller, 2002. "Geographic Localization of International Technology Diffusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 120-142, March.
    17. Ebers, Mark & Powell, Walter W., 2007. "Biotechnology: Its origins, organization, and outputs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 433-437, May.
    18. David Popp, 2011. "International Technology Transfer, Climate Change, and the Clean Development Mechanism," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(1), pages 131-152, Winter.
    19. Marin, Giovanni, 2014. "Do eco-innovations harm productivity growth through crowding out? Results of an extended CDM model for Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 301-317.
    20. Nick Johnstone & Ivan Haščič & David Popp, 2010. "Renewable Energy Policies and Technological Innovation: Evidence Based on Patent Counts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 133-155, January.
    21. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    22. Frank T. Rothaermel & Charles W. L. Hill, 2005. "Technological Discontinuities and Complementary Assets: A Longitudinal Study of Industry and Firm Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 52-70, February.
    23. Tobias Stucki & Martin Woerter, 2017. "Green Inventions: Is Wait-and-see a Reasonable Option?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    24. Lybbert, Travis J. & Zolas, Nikolas J., 2014. "Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 530-542.
    25. Pesaran, M. Hashem & Vanessa Smith, L. & Yamagata, Takashi, 2013. "Panel unit root tests in the presence of a multifactor error structure," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(2), pages 94-115.
    26. Marius Ley, Tobias Stucki, and Martin Woerter, 2016. "The Impact of Energy Prices on Green Innovation," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    27. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent‐Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2011. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 803-842, September.
    28. Bettina Peters & Mark J. Roberts & Van Anh Vuong & Helmut Fryges, 2017. "Estimating dynamic R&D choice: an analysis of costs and long-run benefits," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 409-437, May.
    29. Wolfgang Keller, 2004. "International Technology Diffusion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 752-782, September.
    30. Robert J. Gordon, 2015. "Secular Stagnation: A Supply-Side View," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 54-59, May.
    31. Markus Eberhardt, 2012. "Estimating panel time-series models with heterogeneous slopes," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 12(1), pages 61-71, March.
    32. Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of the Economics of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    33. Raquel Ortega‐Argilés & Mariacristina Piva & Lesley Potters & Marco Vivarelli, 2010. "Is Corporate R&D Investment In High‐Tech Sectors More Effective?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 28(3), pages 353-365, July.
    34. Raquel Ortega-Argilés & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2014. "The transatlantic productivity gap: Is R&D the main culprit?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1342-1371, November.
    35. Fred Gault (ed.), 2013. "Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14427.
    36. Oecd, 2013. "Nanotechnology for Green Innovation," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 5, OECD Publishing.
    37. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan, 2013. "Do firms face a trade-off between the quantity and the quality of their inventions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1072-1079.
    38. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    39. Olley, G Steven & Pakes, Ariel, 1996. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1263-1297, November.
    40. Maddala, G S & Wu, Shaowen, 1999. "A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 631-652, Special I.
    41. Raquel Ortega-Argil�s & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "The productivity impact of R&D investment: are high-tech sectors still ahead?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 204-222, April.
    42. Vincent Mangematin & Steve Walsh, 2012. "The Future Of Nanotechnologies," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00658034, HAL.
    43. Nagaoka, Sadao & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Goto, Akira, 2010. "Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1083-1127, Elsevier.
    44. Griliches, Zvi, 1980. "R & D and the Productivity Slowdown," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 343-348, May.
    45. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Directed Technical Change," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 781-809.
    46. Falk, Martin, 2007. "R&D spending in the high-tech sector and economic growth," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 140-147, September.
    47. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    48. repec:dgr:rugccs:200311 is not listed on IDEAS
    49. Federico Biagi, 2013. "ICT and Productivity: A Review of the Literature," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2013-09, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    50. Christian Reimsbach-Kounatze, 2009. "Towards Green ICT Strategies: Assessing Policies and Programmes on ICT and the Environment," OECD Digital Economy Papers 155, OECD Publishing.
    51. Ark, Bart van & Inklaar, Robert & McGuckin, Robert H., 2003. "ICT and productivity in Europe and the United States," CCSO Working Papers 200311, University of Groningen, CCSO Centre for Economic Research.
    52. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    53. Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Wagner, 2009. "The Duration of Patent Examination at the European Patent Office," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1969-1984, December.
    54. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Helmers, Christian, 2013. "Innovation and diffusion of clean/green technology: Can patent commons help?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 33-51.
    55. Bresnahan, Timothy, 2010. "General Purpose Technologies," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 761-791, Elsevier.
    56. Vincent Mangematin & Steve Walsh, 2012. "The Future Of Nanotechnologies," Post-Print hal-00658034, HAL.
    57. Stucki, Tobias, 2019. "Which firms benefit from investments in green energy technologies? – The effect of energy costs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 546-555.
    58. Leonid Gokhberg & Konstantin Fursov & Ian Miles & Giulio Perani, 2013. "Developing and using indicators of emerging and enabling technologies," Chapters, in: Fred Gault (ed.), Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, chapter 15, pages 349-380, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    59. Bart van Ark & Robert Inklaar & Robert H. McGuckin, 2003. "The Contribution of ICT-Producing and ICT-Using Industries to Productivity Growth: A Comparison of Canada, Europe and the United States," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 6, pages 56-63, Spring.
    60. Ulrich Doraszelski & Jordi Jaumandreu, 2013. "R&D and Productivity: Estimating Endogenous Productivity," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1338-1383.
    61. James Levinsohn & Amil Petrin, 2003. "Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(2), pages 317-341.
    62. Adams, James D, 1990. "Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 673-702, August.
    63. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lopes-Bento, Cindy & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2017. "Direct and cross scheme effects in a research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1118-1132.
    64. G. S. Maddala & Shaowen Wu, 1999. "A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(S1), pages 631-652, November.
    65. Arora, Sanjay K. & Foley, Rider W. & Youtie, Jan & Shapira, Philip & Wiek, Arnim, 2014. "Drivers of technology adoption — the case of nanomaterials in building construction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 232-244.
    66. Venturini, Francesco, 2015. "The modern drivers of productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 357-369.
    67. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    68. Anthony Howell & Canfei He & Rudai Yang & Cindy Fan, 2016. "Technological relatedness and asymmetrical firm productivity gains under market reforms in China," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 9(3), pages 499-515.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mulligan, Kevin & Lenihan, Helena & Doran, Justin & Roper, Stephen, 2022. "Harnessing the science base: Results from a national programme using publicly-funded research centres to reshape firms’ R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    2. Yueran Duan & Qing Guan, 2021. "Predicting potential knowledge convergence of solar energy: bibliometric analysis based on link prediction model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3749-3773, May.
    3. Rahman, Mahfuzur & Billah, Md Morsaline & Hack-Polay, Dieu & Alam, Ashraful, 2020. "The use of biotechnologies in textile processing and environmental sustainability: An emerging market context," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    4. Philip Kerner & Torben Klarl & Tobias Wendler, 2021. "Green Technologies, Environmental Policy and Regional Growth," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2104, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tobias Stucki & Martin Woerter, 2017. "Green Inventions: Is Wait-and-see a Reasonable Option?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    2. Marius Ley, Tobias Stucki, and Martin Woerter, 2016. "The Impact of Energy Prices on Green Innovation," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    3. Jaan Masso & Amaresh K Tiwari, 2021. "Productivity Implications Of R&D, Innovation And Capital Accumulation For Incumbents And Entrants: The Case Of Estonia," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series 130, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    4. Markus Eberhardt & Christian Helmers & Hubert Strauss, 2013. "Do Spillovers Matter When Estimating Private Returns to R&D?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(2), pages 436-448, May.
    5. Christian Soltmann & Tobias Stucki & Martin Woerter, 2015. "The Impact of Environmentally Friendly Innovations on Value Added," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 457-479, November.
    6. Jaan Masso & Amaresh K Tiwari, 2022. "Productivity Implications of R&D, Innovation, and Capital Accumulation for Incumbents and Entrants: Perspectives from a Catching-up Economy," Papers 2205.10540, arXiv.org.
    7. Ugur, Mehment & Vivarelli, Marco, 2020. "The role of innovation in industrial dynamics and productivity growth: a survey of the literature," GLO Discussion Paper Series 648, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    8. Mehmet Ugur & Marco Vivarelli, 2021. "Innovation, firm survival and productivity: the state of the art," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 433-467, July.
    9. Audretsch, David B. & Belitski, Maksim, 2020. "The role of R&D and knowledge spillovers in innovation and productivity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    10. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna & Guidi, Francesco, 2016. "R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2069-2086.
    11. Mehmet Ugur & Marco Vivarelli, 2020. "Technology, industrial dynamics and productivity: a critical survey," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Politica Economica dipe0011, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    12. Kancs, d’Artis & Siliverstovs, Boriss, 2016. "R&D and non-linear productivity growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 634-646.
    13. Peters, Bettina & Roberts, Mark J. & Vuong, Van Anh, 2022. "Firm R&D investment and export market exposure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    14. Davide Castellani & Mariacristina Piva & Torben Schubert & Marco Vivarelli, 2018. "The source of the US /EU Productivity Gap:Less and less effective R&D," LEM Papers Series 2018/16, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    15. Audretsch, David & Hafenstein, Marian & Kritikos, Alexander S. & Schiersch, Alexander, 2018. "Firm Size and Innovation in the Service Sector," IZA Discussion Papers 12035, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Tobias Stucki & Martin Woerter, 2019. "Competitive Pressure and Diversification into Green R&D," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(2), pages 301-325, September.
    17. Castellani, Davide & Piva, Mariacristina & Schubert, Torben & Vivarelli, Marco, 2019. "R&D and productivity in the US and the EU: Sectoral specificities and differences in the crisis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 279-291.
    18. Crass, Dirk & Peters, Bettina, 2014. "Intangible assets and firm-level productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-120, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Ioannis Bournakis & Dimitris Christopoulos & Sushanta Mallick, 2018. "Knowledge Spillovers And Output Per Worker: An Industry‐Level Analysis For Oecd Countries," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(2), pages 1028-1046, April.
    20. Mohnen, Pierre, 2019. "R&D, innovation and productivity," MERIT Working Papers 2019-016, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology comparisons; Productivity; Innovation; Patents; Biotechnology; Nanotechnology; Green technology; Information- and communication technology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:145:y:2019:i:c:p:62-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.